ABSTRACT
This chapter focuses on issues that arise when one considers the use of situational judgment tests (SJTs) in operational settings. We note that a relatively small proportion of SJT research has been done in operational set-tings. For example, only six validity studies summarized in the McDaniel, Morgeson, Finnegan, Campion, and Braverman (2001) meta-analysis of SJT validity use a predictive design, whereas 96 were concurrent studies where the SJT was not used operationally. The first issue addressed here is faking. Although faking can be an issue in nonoperational settings (i.e., concern about positive self-presentation may be present in any setting), the high-stakes nature of testing in an operational setting may create heightened motivation to respond in a manner seen as likely to be well received. The second issue addressed is coaching. In operational settings there is concern about the possibility of some type of external intervention aimed at enhancing test scores. This may range from commercial test preparation efforts, such as those common for highly publicized tests (i.e., the SAT); to local organized efforts, such as those conducted by a labor union or an incumbent group; to individual efforts, as in the case of an individual receiving information from a friend who has successfully passed a test. The third issue is retesting. In operational settings, a policy of permitting an individual to retest is widespread. An individual receiving a failing score must first decide whether to retest, and then decide on a strategy for the retest. A wide variety of strategies are available, including seeking coaching, deciding to change one's approach to the test (e.g., choosing to fake after adopting a “respond honestly” approach on the initial effort, undertaking a program of study to improve one's standing on the construct of interest, and simply trying again).
